AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (11) TMI 64
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e judge. The petitioner-M/s. Auro Food Limited, Pondicherry, filed a petition under section 220(2A) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"), on September 3, 1988, for waiver of interest before the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras. It is the case of the petitioner that it had a claim for deduction under section 80J of the Act for a larger quantum than that was finally decided. Till the issue was settled by the Supreme Court in its decision in Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India [1985] 152 ITR 308, the petitioner pointed out that it had in its favour the decision of the Madras High Court. In the waiver petition, it is also stated that the demand was not outstanding, since the issue was in its favour and as soon as a revision of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... taking us through sub-section (2A) of section 220 of the Act and circumstances highlighted by the petitioner for the waiver of interest and the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax would submit that inasmuch as the authority - Commissioner of Income-tax has not applied his mind and furnished adequate reason before dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner company, the said order cannot be sustained. In other words, according to learned counsel, the authority is exercising quasi-judicial function, he has to apply his mind with reference to the grievance expressed by the petitioner, and ought to have passed a speaking order. On the other hand, learned senior standing counsel for the Department contended that the claim of the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee has co-operated in an enquiry or in any proceeding. Now, we shall consider whether the petitioner has made out a case for applicability of the above-mentioned provision. In the petition it is stated that the assessee had co-operated at all stages with the Department. Regarding payment, it is stated that the company is now in a financial crisis due to its modernisation and expansion, the non-availability of wheat from the Government with the result wheat has to be purchased in the open market at very high rates, the borrowings made in earlier years and investments made in the new units which have not yet started yielding results. The Commissioner of Income-tax in his order dated November 7, 1988, referred to the proved history of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fter considering the application filed by you and the report of the Commissioner of Income-tax in the matter, the Board is of the view that the conditions as laid down in section 220 (2A) are not satisfied in your case and hence regrets its inability to interfere in the matter." The said order was challenged by way of writ petition before the High Court of Delhi. It was contended before the High Court that while rejecting the application, the Central Board of Direct Taxes had given no reasons. The said contention was rejected by the Delhi High Court and ultimately dismissed the said writ petition. When the matter was taken by the assessee by way of appeal to the Supreme Court, disagreeing with the order of the Board as well as the Delhi ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ring and Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1976 SC 1785; [1976] 2 SCC 981, where at page 986 it has been stated that where an authority makes an order in exercise of its quasi-judicial function it must record its reasons in support of the order it makes. In other words, every quasi-judicial order must be supported by reasons. In our opinion, the observations in that case would apply in the present case also." We have already referred to the rejection order passed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, which is similar to the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, in our case. It is clear from the decision of the Supreme Court that even though there is no specific mandate in the subsection that reasons are to ....